Study on Surrounding Rock Failure Law of Gob-Side Entry Based on the Second Invariant of Deviatoric Stress
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The draft manuscript presents details of a study focusing on the relationship between the second invariant of deviatoric stress in coal and rock mass and the deformation and failure of surrounding rock. Here are a few suggestions for improvement: Start by providing a clear and concise statement of the study's objective or its significance within the field of coal and rock mechanics. This will help readers understand the motivation behind the research. The text contains several technical terms and details, making it dense and potentially challenging for non-experts. Consider breaking down the information into smaller sections or bullet points to improve readability and comprehension. Some abbreviations, such as "MPa2" and "gob-side entry," are used without explanation. Define these abbreviations upon their first use or include a glossary to ensure that readers can understand the specific terms used in the study. While the text mentions the evolution of surrounding rock distortion energy, plastic location state, and roadway deformation with the width of the coal pillar, it would be helpful to elaborate on the practical implications of these findings. How do these results contribute to our understanding of coal and rock mechanics or influence engineering practices in mining operations? Consider incorporating clean and clear figures, graphs, or diagrams that represent the evolution of distortion energy, deformation, and stress distribution with varying coal pillar widths. Visual representations can assist readers in comprehending complex data and concepts. Arrange the information in a logical order, ensuring that each paragraph or section builds upon the previous one. This will help readers follow the study's progression and understand the connections between different aspects of the research.
Specific comments:
Text in some of the figures is not clear.
Add details for setting up the numerical model, boundary conditions, stresses, mesh etc.
Write conclusions concisely, also add recommendations and future work
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the paper. Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor;
Great thanks for giving me this chance to review the manuscript entilited "Study on surrounding rock failure law of gob-side entry based on the second invariant of deviatoric stress". I have reviewed this manuscript and I suggest that this manuscript can be published after major revision for the following reasons:
1. Page 1 (abstract): some sentences did not end by (.) such as in lines 17, 21, and 22. Also, the main findings (e.g. values) should be mentioned in the abstract.
2. Page 2: the citation references such as Li (4), Xiong (5), Wu (6), Wang (7), Xiao (9), Li (10), Ma (11) should be followed by (et al.,).
3. Page 3: the citation references such as Zhao (12), HE (13), CHEN (19), should be followed by (et al.,).
4. Page 3: A mistake was found in the numbering of citation reference Ma et al. (21-22) not (21-25).
5. Page 4: line 170: coal seam 1# should be coal seam 2#
6. Page 5: the sequence of lithology in Table 3 should follow the same order as in the simulation model in Fig. 1
7. The authors did not mention how they did they obtain the values in Table 3, 4, 5
8. Page 6: the scales of the graphs (c-2, c-3), (d-2, d-3), (e-2, e-3), (f-2, f-3), and (h-2, h-3) should be adjusted.
9. In the RESULT ANALYSES SECTION, the authors did not compare their findings with any other previous studies
Dear editor;
Great thanks for giving me this chance to review the manuscript entilited "Study on surrounding rock failure law of gob-side entry based on the second invariant of deviatoric stress". I have reviewed this manuscript and I suggest that this manuscript can be published after major revision for the following reasons:
1. Page 1 (abstract): some sentences did not end by (.) such as in lines 17, 21, and 22. Also, the main findings (e.g. values) should be mentioned in the abstract.
2. Page 2: the citation references such as Li (4), Xiong (5), Wu (6), Wang (7), Xiao (9), Li (10), Ma (11) should be followed by (et al.,).
3. Page 3: the citation references such as Zhao (12), HE (13), CHEN (19), should be followed by (et al.,).
4. Page 3: A mistake was found in the numbering of citation reference Ma et al. (21-22) not (21-25).
5. Page 4: line 170: coal seam 1# should be coal seam 2#
6. Page 5: the sequence of lithology in Table 3 should follow the same order as in the simulation model in Fig. 1
7. The authors did not mention how they did they obtain the values in Table 3, 4, 5
8. Page 6: the scales of the graphs (c-2, c-3), (d-2, d-3), (e-2, e-3), (f-2, f-3), and (h-2, h-3) should be adjusted.
9. In the RESULT ANALYSES SECTION, the authors did not compare their findings with any other previous studies
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the paper. Please check the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised the text following the reviewer's comments.
